[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Finding the dump
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Finding the dump |
Date: |
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 09:22:59 +0200 |
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 22:25:50 -0500
>
> > I would suggest to use another word instead of "should". Using
> > argv[0] has its drawbacks, e.g., if the string there neither has a
> > slash nor is a file found along PATH -- this could happen when a
> > program is invoked via a symlink
>
> How so? I don't see how this could happen. If the symlink was found
> in PATH to run the program, it should be there when the program looks
> for it, except in the case where it was deleted or renamed in the mean
> time.
I mean the case where a symlink is to an explicit absolute file name,
and the related files can be found only if you know the target of the
symlink. But AFAIK argv[0] will not give you the resolved target file
name, it will give you the symlink name.
> or some other method, or because the
> > calling program puts there something unrelated to where the executable
> > lives.
>
> Yes, that can happen, but I think that is an error on the caller's
> part. Anyway, there is no other portable method besides argv[0]. I
> don't know whether we want to assume that all kernels for GNU will
> support /proc/self.
Maybe so, but still, saying "should" can be interpreted to mean any
other method is discouraged, which I don't think is the case. I think
this text wants to make a point that in this case it is OK to use
argv[0], unlike when it is used to change the behavior of the program
in some fundamental way.